One Prince Of The Present Time example essay topic

THE PHILOSOPHY Regardless of the fact that even his name has come to be equated with cunning and political manipulation in modern times. Machiavelli himself was uniquely committed to furthering the agenda of what he thought of as a "true" leader. His books, The Discourses and The Prince, are, in fact, devoted to endeavoring to discover the laws of political behavior that lead to success in political action. The Prince, which is his most renowned work, centers on the principle that justifies the definition that: The Prince is a handbook for tyrants about obtaining and retaining political power at any cost -- -that is, "the end justifies the means". From this principle, Machiavelli establishes a number of "rules" he perceived vital to the obtaining and retaining process of a successful state. His aim was to persuade the monarch that he could best preserve his power by using violence carefully and economically, by respecting the persons, property, and traditions of his subjects, and by promoting material prosperity.

The Prince begins by classifying the types of principalities, how one wins them over and how to hold on to them. Machiavelli cautions princes to be prudent in their hunt for glory and wealth. According to him, when taking over a municipality one must do only two things, kill the previous prince and his whole family and do not change the current laws and taxes. Once you take over a country and kill the prince and his family, it is easy to rule: there is no one to fear. Abstaining from changing their old rules will save you from the hostility that will arise from the people. However, if it isn't possible for you to do so, Machiavelli proposes a number of ways to pacify the colony into submission.

According to him, in order to achieve this submission and calm of the people, one must be able to use force and compel others to believe, and to keep believing, in him. For, he says, the one who is able to depend on his own strength will be able to sway all unbelievers and prevent the people from ever doubting him, therefore totally conquering the land. Whereas, those who merely entreat the people will be crushed in his attempts to conquer even the weakest of states. For not only will he fail in winning over the unbelievers, there is a big possibility that his believers will doubt him eventually. To quote from The Prince, "For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer". After gaining control of the principality, there is a need to inflict all possible cruelties to the principality swiftly and all at once, so that it may be forgotten.

One may be cruel at one blow if this is necessary for one's security. However, the prince should not persist in evil -- - only when he can use this for the advantage of his people. Princes that use evil once (as required) are more successful than princes who use evil more and more every day. The Prince tells us that the people should be treated well or be crushed. The reason given for this course of action is that, if you injure someone only lightly they can still take revenge, if you crush them they can not seek revenge. A prince should, however, deliver frequent, small benefits to his people so that its positive effects last longer.

For the people should feel at least a little relief once in a while. It is also important that the prince will not overdo bestowing benefits upon the people. Giving just a little benefit frequently will secure the people's favor in you. Whereas if you give them benefits all at once, the next time they ask for more, you shall be incapable of giving them any kind of relief, thus making you disliked by the people. Having established the trust and confidence of the people in your governance, it is then important to attend to other matters of the state. While in government, the practical prince must understand statecraft and warfare, and be in constant practice of the latter.

A prince should have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organization and discipline. For it is through this art, the only art that is necessary to one who commands, that maintains those who are born princes and often enables men of private fortune to attain that rank. A prince should never let his mind stray from the exercise of war; which he can do in two ways: by action and by study. As to action, he must, keep his soldiers disciplined and trained, engage constantly in hunting, and learn the geography of the lands. This inclusion of geography in the art of warfare serves two purposes: the prince will be able to know his country and better defend it; and from the knowledge and experience gathered from that one locality, one can better understand those other localities which have a similarity to that which he has familiarized himself with. This is for the exercise of the body (action), but as for that of the mind, the prince is urged to read history and study the actions of eminent men.

To see how they acted in battle, examine the causes of their victories and their defeats in order to imitate the former and to avoid the occurrence of the latter. It is also commendable to follow in the footsteps of great leaders who have been much praised and glorified and to make these icons' actions and deeds the basis of their own actions and deeds. A wise prince should follow similar methods and never remain idle in peaceful times, but industriously make good use of them, so that when fortune changes she may find him prepared to resist her blows, and to prevail in adversity... Machiavelli emphasizes the importance and the advantage of an armed man as opposed to an unarmed man.

He cites instances in history about the triumph of the armed and forceful leaders against the "weak and unarmed". He declares that the chief cause of the loss of state is the contempt of this art, when princes care more about luxury than of arms. Machiavelli says that it is natural for men to want to acquire. If they do they are praised. If they are unable to acquire, they get stupid. It is easy to understand that if you do not observe these rules after taking over a principality, you might lose it.

Also according to him, nothing brings a prince more prestige than great campaigns and striking demonstrations of his personal abilities. We gather from these lines that Machiavelli thinks it good for princes to attack enemies, to conquer their lands, to cripple them and to instigate fear in everyone. It is also pertinent for the prince to parade around these conquests and to pave the way to his fame and glory. This salvo of conquests will be the foundations of his political power. Nonetheless, these subjugation's should be done in rapid succession in order to give people less opportunity and time to quietly plot against your own downfall. However, even as a prince is the most powerful and influential of his kind, it pays to be even more cautious.

As said before, the prince should never be idle in peaceful times rather he should be even more vigilant. He should be careful that a foreigner, friend or foe, does not acquire any more power than he has. Neighboring states not taken over should not be allowed to become too powerful. Although the good prince should keep their weak friends protected and secure, he should never weaken himself, especially by helping others to become more powerful, for "he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined". The prince must, at all times, remain master of the whole country. If he is unable to do so, he will be taken over; otherwise he will have constant power struggles for those who have designs on his kingdom.

Although it is important to keep oneself aware of the goings-on in the present, sensible princes should prepare for the future too. Minor problems should be addressed immediately before it gets out of hand. To foresee problems may be difficult, but when the prince sees future problems, he must act to fix it at once. Otherwise, the demise of the country will be inevitable, for once the problem is let alone, it will be allowed room to grow until it consumes the entire country. Politics is a struggle between Fortuna and virt'u (fortune and virtue, the latter in the sense of strength rather than Christian virtue). In accordance to this Machiavellian definition, a prince must always show the people that he is the embodiment of mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion.

However, Machiavelli concedes that the prince doesn't necessarily need to abide by these merits. He should actually only appear to be upholding these virtues. This is so because, according to Machiavelli, it is virtues that may actually hold you back from following the rules he laid out and thus lead to your ruin; whereas vices must not always be avoided because it might bring security and prosperity. With respect to religion, ecclesiastical principalities do not require ability or good fortune for a prince to get hold of. These are sustained by all-powerful religious laws. For, although before these principles held little worldly power before, now they hold a great deal.

So in order to keep the people in check and to keep them in your power, you must only appear to be actually living by these principles. Therefore, to deceive your people, by Niccolo Machiavelli's rules, will actually benefit them more than it will hurt them. Machiavelli then ends his tyrannical tirade by blaming the Church of Rome, i.e. the Christian Church, for Italy's ill-state of affairs. He declares that Italy would be better off without the presence of the Christian Church and the corrupting influence it has had on the piety and religion of Italy. He then raises a cry of help for Italy and calls for a prince who will be able to liberate Italy from her current state of affairs, which is comparable to a slough of despond.

CRITIQUE, RELATIONSHIP, RELEVANCE APPLICABILITY TO CONTEMPORARY TIMES The Prince has had a long and colorful history and the number of controversies that it has generated is, although great in number, not surprising. There were times when it was terribly unpopular. Its author was even seen to be in league with the devil. The Elizabethans conjured up the image of the 'murdering Machiavel' and both the Protestants and the later Catholics held his books responsible for evil things. Modern scholarship may have removed the stigma of devilry from Machiavelli, but it still seems uneasy as to his ethical position. However, it is amusing to think that as much as past, and even present, scholars have been persistently uneasy about Machiavelli's ideas; he has only been explaining and improving that which has been, and is being, practiced by governments.

The Prince is avowedly political. Its object is the clear and concise statement of a foolproof political program for Italian princes. It is evident that for Machiavelli this objective, more than ethics, is his concern. This explains the radical views he has introduced through his writings. One of these infamous principles is that, in order to completely conquer a principality, it is necessary to kill the ruling prince and his family. However, today there are strict laws about killing, not to mention killing a ruling family, which prohibits one from committing this uncivilized act.

Still, there are some ways to go about this barbaric business of conquering lands without, more or less, breaking these laws. As to foreign invasion, it is vital that the conqueror put up some noble front and give an excuse about wanting to be the salvation of said to-be-conquered country. After having done so, even if there is minimal support from the peace-keepers of the world, one can go about bombing the country and man-hunting its ruler and his family. Thus said, the incident of the USA's attack on Iraq comes to mind. This "war of salvation" was initially proposed as a means to confiscate weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from Iraq (and yet the US refused to surrender its own WMD's). Not obtaining the UN's consent for the war, the US suddenly claimed that the purpose of the war was to save Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

This aside from speculations that the US was after the rich oil deposits of the Arab country and vengeance for the tragedy of the 9-11. So, even without receiving the blessing of the UN, the US went on spending billions, killing hundreds and shattering countless lives. As to local assault, the logical thing to do would be to bring into disrepute the present rulers of your country. The most popular form of discrediting in the Philippine scenario seems to be that of which was done against former President Joseph Estrada and which is being done by Senator Pan filo Lacs on against First Gentleman Michael Arroyo. Both cases involve the unearthing of a bank account under a non-existent name which is associated with the parties in question, after which a team of highly-trained and highly paid liars are then assembled. However, the latter case also engages in parading around with evidence incriminating the defense, of which the prosecutors cannot produce original copies of.

Yet, still they proceed; still they persist in their wrestle for power. Nowhere in The Prince does Machiavelli make ethics or morals his concern. Nor does he openly shun it, as seen with his advice to the prince on appearing to be a virtuous ruler. It is evident, though, that the Christian ethics have no place in Machiavellian work. This is easily inferred because throughout the work a system based on arms rather than on Christian love is declared the greatest necessity. Murder is condoned when necessary.

Virtue and vice are not seen as black and white, rather as transposable shades of gray. This principle of Machiavelli is true for every government that exists, has existed, and until the occasion of a miracle, will continue to exist. Christianity in our country, even as it is the predominating religious sect, does not seem to be making any substantial influence on our political officials. What with their active participation in graft, corruption, deceit and greed. From what has been observed from reading The Prince, there is a separate ethical / moral paradigm practiced by the prince, one which must be generated from political necessities. This leaves us to conclude that, gathering from the numerous unethical, albeit discreet, acts committed by our government officials, who are under the guise of devout Christians, this principle of Machiavelli on the non-existence of virtue still rings true.

Machiavelli tells the prince to be brutal to the people all at one blow and to give them small benefits regularly. While it is logical that committing your cruelties to the people all at once will help you keep them on a leash, this part of the principle is outdated. It cannot be applied to present times because liberality and human rights are now being vigorously upheld by the people. As a result, inflicting such inhuman quantities of cruelty will not be tolerated. Though it is possible to seriously cripple a person, one cannot escape punishment for this indiscretion. For the reason that, even if the victim becomes missing in action, others who are affected will avenge this injustice, be it in legal ways or not.

The masses will always revolt if they feel oppressed. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that frequent benefits given in small amounts still is an effective way to pacify most people. To be knowledgeable with respect to statecraft and warfare was practical in the 15th century and the 21st century concurs. It is evident that up to present, countries, with substantial resources are constantly developing war artilleries. They see life as a competition in the biggest scale possible -- - worldwide. In their attempt to outdo each other, they flaunt their advances in trivialities around the globe, while, secretly, their scientists are developing the deadliest weapons imaginable and their armies are being trained for war.

Thinking ahead and preparing for the future has always been a necessary and laudable practice of governments. On occasion, reasons behind this preoccupation may be that of genuine concern for the welfare of future generations. However, more often than not, these actions are motivated and fueled by purely selfish dreams -- - that is, fame and grandeur. These self- interested motives defeat the purpose of the principle and blemish its laudable intentions. Machiavelli raises the need to be feared by the people, as opposed to being loved by them, in order to retain your power. As most of his principles, this one is indeed logical and pragmatic.

To present, this somehow holds partially true and false. In the Philippine scenario, if we are to look at the officials that are seated and have been in office, we can see an obvious pattern. Celebrities, when their novelty fades, run for office, even for President, and win. The reason being that, the people, specifically the uneducated, thinking that the silver screen personalities are documented versions of the real thing, grow to love these celebrities and elect them into office. Then when these "officials" botch their jobs to the further detriment of our already troubled nation, the unsatisfied step in, discredit the ruler, pay off a few hundred people, and march to the EDSA shrine where they, for the umpteenth time, resurrect the EDSA Revolution.

Even if the ruler is one that is feared by most, there eventually materializes a revolution to address this problem. There really is no way of satisfying the people; as a result, retaining political power for an unlimited period becomes difficult, even impossible. This situation, thus, makes the aforementioned Machiavellian principle obsolete. All in all, we find Machiavelli's affinity for the use of force, deceit and manipulation for obtaining and retaining political power is, without a doubt, very much applicable in contemporary times. The applicability of these 15th century principles, rejected ones at that, in the 21st century doesn't say much for neither the evolution of our political scenario nor for the integrity of the modern man.

Nonetheless, it says everything about the practicality and the constant lust for absolute power that our leaders and that, on occasion, we posses. MODIFICATIONS ON PHILOSOPHY AND DEFENSE OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS We believe that The Prince, radical though its ideas may seem, actually present practical and surprisingly logical ideas. Overall we realize that the gist most of what Machiavelli proposes in this writing is actually being applied in present times, only in varying degrees. Furthermore, the reason behind the persistent dismissal of his principle by the ruling classes, is that they fear that once the people are aware of what irregularities are present in their leadership, then the power they have for so long protected, will be taken from them, most probably by force.

So it was necessary for them to discredit these works of Machiavelli in order to put into practice his notorious principle "the end justifies the means", and to retain their ill-gotten, and ill-retained power for another century or so. However, we feel that pragmatic as the principles in The Prince may seem, it still suffers from a few imperfections. In the succeeding paragraphs, are the recommended adjustments that we feel needs to be done in Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. First, every quote and suggestion in The Prince is made with concern only for the prince's wellbeing.

There are several examples in it where a prince must act in cruel ways against others, where only he benefits from these actions. The welfare of others is never considered; instead, it is full of proposals on how a prince should take care of himself, even at the expense of others if required. We find this utterly unacceptable and inappropriate. A country is not the private property of any ruler where he considers only himself with every decision made and every action taken for the nation. It is supposed to be a conglomeration of people who have come together with a common interest and have chosen one who will simply echo this universal desire of the people. The prince is merely a representative who should make the welfare of the people his first priority.

This is what Machiavelli's The Prince lacks. Its main objective, as discussed, is to guide rulers, tyrants specifically, on how to obtain and retain power. Every rule made and every action taken is for the realization of said objective. All other things, such as genuine concern for the people and their welfare, come in last place behind the prince's preoccupation with power, wealth and grandeur.

This should never be the case. For one thing, it is the people from whom his power comes from, and it is they who must be benefiting from it. For another, Machiavelli underestimates the intellect of the people. Does he think that the people will forever bend to the prince's every whim?

Granted, at first all it takes is a glib tongue and a powerful army, but as time passes even this will not suffice to fend off the angry and abused masses who will come knocking the prince's doors down and who will be murdering him in their fury. So for the gain of all, the prince should certainly attend to his needs, however these should come only second to the needs of the people. Even then, the acquisition of his desires should never, in any occasion infringe on the rights of the people, nor breach the trust they have in his ruling. Unless he welcomes an eventual, inhuman and repulsive death, not fit for even the most heartless of all criminals, then it would be wise to abide by our modifications.

However, crafty Machiavelli still manages to come up with yet another barbaric rule to respond to the said revolt of the masses. Another canon of his that we oppose as well. Second, to quote Machiavelli. ".. for injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer". Machiavelli, being true to his notorious principle of "the end justifies the means", proposes yet another way of keeping what you have acquired, ill-gotten or not.

It matters not to him that the prince is dealing with human beings; all he can see are a means for profit and the security of the state, i.e. his power. Yet again, Machiavelli is without a doubt, in the wrong. Machiavelli dictates that when one injures a person, one must make sure that that person will be hurt in such a way that he will never be able to take revenge. However, if you shall cripple every person who opposes you, then you will be crippling the very force who will pave the way to your wealth and power. Those who oppose you will be those who defend the country when it is being invaded -- - they are the men folk. Not to be sexist, but it is an accepted fact that women are not as physically strong as men.

Although it is possible for them to build their bodies and be as strong, this is a process which will take a lot of time and trouble. Also, one cannot expect children and the elderly to produce result equal to that of the strong and able men of the country can produce. So in crippling the men, you minimize the extent of your power and maximize your suffering and difficulties. "Then do not cripple every man, just mercilessly injure enough to serve as an example for those who may have planned on revolting" you think. Bravo! You will have then founded a nation full of scared, quivering idiots who fear you as they fear the devil himself.

You may then expect a generally cooperative population who will come running at your every call, and who will jump at every crack of the whip. This may go on for a decade or so, however, one must not expect this to last. We shouldn't overestimate the patience and endurance of man. At some point, there will come a man, or a group of men, who will be so brilliant and so tired of your tyranny that they will gather the masses and convince them, no matter how long it takes, that you must be brought down and that the people are capable of doing so.

This is when your real problems will arise. At first this group may seem like a mosquito that does nothing but bite you, and yet only succeeds in annoying you. Then they will continually grow and will begin to become a pack of angry wolves, lions and elephants all driven with one aim -- - to eliminate you. Their revolt will be fueled with the anger they have suppressed for so long under your despotic rule. This revolt will be the explosion of this rage, an eruption that will surpass the magnitude of that of Vesuvius'. And where will the all-powerful prince be after all this?

Your body will be six feet under horse manure and your head will be mounted on a stick for the entire world to see. Like they say, "the higher they build them, the harder they fall". We believe that that best way to go about this is to talk to the revolting masses. If the people reject your authority, it may be because either they do not understand your motives, or, most probably, they have no inkling as to what your motives actually are. Naturally, you must be sure that what you present to them, and what you really intend on doing with their country, is for the best of their country, achieved through the most diplomatic method possible. We find that in the course of history, non compliance with this rule has caused many rulers to fail.

For example, the Japanese had a noble proposal for the Filipinos. Their slogan said "Asia for the Asians", ergo, by reading between the lines; it also read "Philippines for the Filipinos". Nevertheless, the Filipino people revolted because they did not understand the intentions of the Japanese. The lie that the Americans were colonizing them because they had the Philippines best interest at hand and that the Americans truly loved the Filipinos were embedded in the Filipinos minds as facts.

Even when the Americans left them to suffer, the ignorant Filipino held on to this lie. So by attacking the Japanese, they unwittingly helped those who were destroying the Philippines, i.e. the Americans. However, the Japanese did not help make the situation better by inflicting so much injury on the Filipino. Instead this caused more anger and embittered the Filipinos to revolt. If the Japanese just explained and convinced the Filipinos about the benefit of their motives, life would have been much easier for both parties. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the significance of the system of rewards and punishment when ruling a country.

We cannot do away with either one. Therefore, we concur that indeed injuries should be inflicted upon the people. But only upon those who, even after being negotiated with and after establishing a government that works for the welfare of all, persistently fight against the government. These are the people upon whom every means of diplomacy have been exhausted on, and yet still resist governance.

It is only in these situations when, undeniably, the end justifies the means. Third, The Prince tells of "One prince of the present time, whom it is not well to name, never preaches anything else but peace and good faith, and to both he is most hostile, and either, if he had kept it, would have deprived him of reputation and kingdom many a time". Simply put, The Prince advises princes to only seem as if he is the embodiment of mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion; that it is not necessary, in fact it is not advisable, for him to actually be a man of such caliber. He declares that such virtues would contribute more to the downfall of the ruler than to his rise in power. We strongly disagree. Even if you pretend to be an embodiment of the aforementioned virtues, no secret can forever be kept a secret.

With this we turn our attention to the political unrest that has been plaguing our country. Politicians, or even the family of politicians, such as First Gentlemen Michael Arroyo, who may have succeeded in hiding their dark secrets for some time always gets found out in the end. And when this happens, these deceitful political figures (or their relatives), who made the people believe their charade of nobility, bring down not only themselves but their friends and family as well, and eventually, as is obvious at present, will bring down the country with him. Evidently, Machiavelli's invitation to deceit is not as sound as it may seem.

So why pretend if the outcome really depends on the prince himself? If you truly are a good prince, then nothing, not even ethics or morals, should impair your political judgment. If a citizen violates the law then he should be punished. If he, even against all odds, abides by it, then a reward is in order. There should punishments, but these must be justified and the law must be followed to the letter in carrying out these reprimands. For example, do not look the other way when your friends and family do wrong.

Preferential treatment of criminal relatives is against the law. So although you are dictated by emotion and your love to pardon them... do not give in. True, it may be difficult to do, but never has anything great been easy to achieve. Being a truly great leader requires plenty of sacrifice. We feel that to deceive the people is not only uncalled for, it breaches the trust that the people bestowed upon you when they chose to allow you to become their prince. For, as implied before, without the people and their trust, then there is no power.

N Nevertheless, we believe that, while one needs to be an embodiment of justice, mercy, faith, integrity and humanity, it is not necessary to be an embodiment of religion. For it cannot be avoided that in a country there will be different religious sects whose doctrines may clash. So in order to keep peace, a true politician should judge by the law and separate his religious life from his political one. Fourth, we observe that in The Prince, Machiavelli seems to have neglected to tackle the importance of education.

We believe that educating the people, along with the correct governance of state, is one of the best ways to retain their trust in you and to therefore retain your power. As said earlier, the people usually complain and eventually revolt because they are ignorant of state affairs. We deem it, then, necessary to educate the people and to make them understand the reasons behind every action you take. Also, this education serves a double purpose. Through this education, the people will be able to find better jobs, which will lead to better income, and a more satisfied populace. Gradually, the economy of the country will increase and everyone will be content.

However, this is conditional. If a country insists on patronizing the products of others and if they persist in letting foreigners exhaust what resources are available, then this future can hardly be realized. Thus, we think it necessary to reduce the budget on foreign affairs and put the excess in the budget for education. Nevertheless, we concede that there is still a danger of the people taking over after having been educated.

This can only be brought about by two things: first, if the governance of state is not beneficial for the people; and second, when the principles and virtues taught are wrong and outmoded. The first is easily amended; the prince should simply follow the revisions to Machiavelli's The Prince that we have provided. However, the second is not as simple and this is where our next modification comes in. Fifth, Machiavelli, in the last few chapters of The Prince, declares that Italy would be better off without the presence of the Christian Church. The complete abolition of the Christian Church, or of any church / religion for that matter, is not only highly irregular, it is also near to impossible.

People, according to previous philosophers such as John Jacques Rousseau need to have a religion to believe in to help keep them obedient. To quote him from his work "The Social Contract", "The legislator therefore, being unable to appeal to either force or reason, must have recourse to an authority of a different order, capable of constraining without violence and persuading without convincing... This is what has, in all ages, compelled the fathers of nations to have recourse to divine intervention... , in order that the peoples, submitting to the laws of the State as to those of nature, and recognizing the same power in the formation of the city as in that of man, might obey freely, and bear with docility the yoke of the public happiness". So abolishing an age-old religion would actually be detrimental to the rule of a prince. Most religious doctrines are centuries old, and it may be difficult for the people to accept revisions. Nevertheless, it needs to be done, for most of these regulations are archaic and no longer reasonable.

Therefore, along with the implementation of education for the masses, we propose that there also be a reform on the Church and its laws. Lastly, The Prince preaches of a need to attack enemies, to conquer their lands, to cripple them and to instigate fear in everyone. We admit that attacking your enemies, and even, now and again, crippling them, is a vital course of action, but it really isn't necessary to conquer their lands and to instigate fear in everyone. The Prince also tells that. ".. a prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man". This is not attained merely through manhandling people. Granted, this will make you powerful, however, it shall also make you hated.

And Machiavelli also says that "one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people". So the best course of action after having defeated and crippled your enemy would not be to conquer them, but to aide them in establishing a new government for themselves. It must be kept in mind at all times that to aide does not include influencing the people to do as you say. Your participation should only go as far as advising them, no more, no less.

Even then, abstinence from conquering their lands is not enough; one must also abstain from these attacks unless your enemies have brought about physical assault to your own country. To attack an enemy just because they got on your nerves, will not only degrade you in the eyes of others, it will give the other country the satisfaction of having succeeded in irritating you. It will not be seen as an attack lead by brave, courageous, gallant men, but one lead by agitated fools. Therefore, a great prince should have, along with the knowledge on statecraft and warfare, an open mind and a great deal of discipline, patience, refinement, and understanding.

Without these, the abovementioned incidents may become reality, and the dignity of a ruler and his nation will be at stake. On the whole, we are convinced that, Machiavelli's atrocious principle need not be done away with, it only needs revision. It is not at all times that the end justifies the means. It is only feasible to conclude this only after all other manners of diplomacy have been exhausted. In brief, to put into action the principle "the end justifies the means" is a last resort. Peter M.R. Stirk & David Weigall, An Introduction to Political Ideas (London, Pinter Publishers Limited, 1995), pp. 226,230-1,258-9,263-5,360-1 Readings in Social Science II (Social, Economic and Political Thought), 'The Prince and The Discourses', Michael Curtis, The Great Political Theories, Volume 1; William Ebenstein & Alan O. Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present, 5th edition, (University of the Philippines, 1993), pp. 86-95,127-145 W.K. Marriott, 'Translation of The Prince', The Gutenberg Project TIME (Asia) Magazine, July 07, 2003 and September 01, 2003 Issue 1999 GROLIER Multimedia Encyclopedia, Deluxe Edition Encyclopedia Americana Online.